find_opportunities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output is two-part (matched sites plus ready-to-run queries) and that the agent must execute those queries externally rather than the tool doing so. It says nothing about empty/no-match results, read-only nature, cost, or limits, which matters for a 0-schema tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage and precedence notes following. The long niche example list is useful grounding rather than fluff, though the single undifferentiated paragraph makes it slightly harder to scan than a short structured list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition does well to describe the shape of the return value and the site-vs-explicit precedence. It is still incomplete on direct semantics for keywords/competitors and on what happens when no opportunities match, gaps an agent would have to discover at call time.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents site's precedence meaning, gives a rich example list for niche, and states country accepts a name or code. Keywords, location, and competitors are only mentioned as values inherited from a saved site, not explained as direct inputs, leaving three of six parameters loosely defined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: return backlink opportunities, comprising citation/directory/profile sites plus footprint search queries. That is highly distinctive from siblings like draft_outreach or verify_backlink. It never names an alternative tool, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent to run the returned queries with web search, and explains the precedence rule for the site parameter ('anything you pass wins'), which is exactly the decision an agent needs to make. It does not say when not to use this tool or point to a sibling alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.